The Video iPod I want to see
When most people talk about a Video iPod they want a playback device. This is not a product that makes any sense to me. The process of ripping my collection of DVDs and carrying them around with me isn't all that appealing because a) I can't casually pull the thing out and start watching a 2 hour movie at work, during a commute, etc. and b) if I'm going to someones house to watch a movie, just grabbing the DVD is more convenient.
That being said, I do want to see a Video iPod. A Video iPod that is a hard disk based camcorder. The biggest drawback to editing movies with iMovie is importing the video. With the Video iPod you just connect the firewire cable and start editing.
That being said, I do want to see a Video iPod. A Video iPod that is a hard disk based camcorder. The biggest drawback to editing movies with iMovie is importing the video. With the Video iPod you just connect the firewire cable and start editing.
Comments
Originally posted by Outsider
Anyone knoe how much DV video you can fit on a 80GB laptop drive? How about a 40GB 1.8" drive?
Well, DV footage requires roughly 12 GB per hour. Its been awhile, but if I remember correctly it is about 200MBs per minute. So on a 40GB drive, you could fit around 3 hours. Better than a DV tape (which holds 60 minutes).
Originally posted by byamabe
The biggest drawback to editing movies with iMovie is importing the video. With the Video iPod you just connect the firewire cable and start editing.
Rather that doing live edits (which is what you want, and would leave you with no source backup), the "video ipod" could allow you to import much quicker than DV tape. It would just be a matter of copying the files off the iPod, rather than "playing" them into your mac. So an import could take a minute or two instead of 20-30.
There is a disadvantage to a "Video iPod". You have limited immediate storage. You can't swap out a tape if you need to film more. You would have to start importing all the footage on your mac, just so you could go out and film. And then you run into space issues on your mac for editing and storage of your work. I can hardly image peopel buying external hard drives to store film on. that woudl be really expensive (compared to buying DV tapes...)
I know that with my camera, I have about 4 DV tapes worth of stuff just sitting here with film on them. If I didn't have the tapes, I would have no room on my mac, as it would be full of all the footage I have taken. You need removable storage with a video camera.
So what is the advantage of a hard drive based video camera? All I see are real disadvantages.
Originally posted by kupan787
Rather that doing live edits (which is what you want, and would leave you with no source backup), the "video ipod" could allow you to import much quicker than DV tape. It would just be a matter of copying the files off the iPod, rather than "playing" them into your mac. So an import could take a minute or two instead of 20-30.
Not true, especially if it is QuickTime based as I expect it would be. You can easily edit clips without touching the originals. The edits are just in references movie.
There is a disadvantage to a "Video iPod". You have limited immediate storage. You can't swap out a tape if you need to film more.
I figure Apple would be smart enough to make the drives swappable, and another source of revenue so I didn't put that in my original post.
You would have to start importing all the footage on your mac, just so you could go out and film. And then you run into space issues on your mac for editing and storage of your work. I can hardly image peopel buying external hard drives to store film on. that woudl be really expensive (compared to buying DV tapes...)
I know that with my camera, I have about 4 DV tapes worth of stuff just sitting here with film on them. If I didn't have the tapes, I would have no room on my mac, as it would be full of all the footage I have taken. You need removable storage with a video camera.
Sorry, DVDs as data or footage is a better and cheaper archival alternative than extra hard drives or DV tapes.
Quote:
So what is the advantage of a hard drive based video camera? All I see are real disadvantages.
Besides not agreeing with any of your disadvantages, the biggest advantage is that people would actually edit their footage if they didn't have they didn't have to import them. Tell my why you have 4 DVD tapes sitting around with footage on them. Why aren't they edited? Because it is a pain to import. What if your production cycle was:
1) Shoot
2) Edit
3) Burn Edited Footage to DVD
3a) Burn Origianal Footage to DVD as data or video
Instead of:
1) Shoot
2) Import entire tape to computer. If you don't have enough
space search for footage you actually want.
3) Edit
4) If not all footage was imported, go back to step 2.
5) Burn Edited Footage to DVD
6) Keep tapes around for archival purposes.
Originally posted by byamabe
Not true, especially if it is QuickTime based as I expect it would be. You can easily edit clips without touching the originals. The edits are just in references movie.
Ahh, true I totally forgot about this.
I figure Apple would be smart enough to make the drives swappable, and another source of revenue so I didn't put that in my original post.
Not cost effective. A 40 GB HD (iPod size) costs something close to $200+. For that price I could buy a ton of DV taps that hold way more than a 40GB HD could.
There needs to be a means, cheaply, for me to swap out to record more if the situation warrants it. DV allows that.
Sorry, DVDs as data or footage is a better and cheaper archival alternative than extra hard drives or DV tapes.
A DV tape can hold me an hour of footage. DV is rewritable. DVD-R is not.
But lets say you were talking about DVD-RW disks for storage of extra footage. That means I need to import the footage to my mac, copy it to a DVD-RW disk, just to back it up. With a DV based camera, I don't need to import at all, it is already on the tape, and all backed up.
Furthere a DVD-RW can only hold 25 minutes of DV footage. In oprder to hold an hour of footage, I would need 3 disks (cant fit it on 2). And then I would have to cut up my source footage to fit onto the multiple DVD-RW.
How is this better and cheaper?
Besides not agreeing with any of your disadvantages, the biggest advantage is that people would actually edit their footage if they didn't have they didn't have to import them. Tell my why you have 4 DVD tapes sitting around with footage on them. Why aren't they edited?
Because it is a pain to import.
Nope, they have already been edited, sent off for VHS production or burned to a DVD. They are there simply as backups, as I don't have the space to keep all the footage on my computer. Some of it is stuff from trips, some of it is stuff I shot for my classes.
What if your production cycle was:
1) Shoot
2) Edit
3) Burn Edited Footage to DVD
3a) Burn Origianal Footage to DVD as data or video
I could never fit my original footage onto 1 DVD in DV format, see above. And I really don't see a point in taking the time to convert the foofage to mpeg2 to burn to a DVD as video. If I ever needed to deal with it again, that means convert it back to DV. This is time I am losing that I wouldn't lose simply by keeping my DV tape backups.
Instead of:
1) Shoot
2) Import entire tape to computer. If you don't have enough
space search for footage you actually want.
3) Edit
4) If not all footage was imported, go back to step 2.
5) Burn Edited Footage to DVD
6) Keep tapes around for archival purposes.
Its more like:
1) Shoot
2) Import entrie tape, and then store the tape as backup
3) Edit
4) Burn or export back to DV (depending on use).
I will always have the room to edit a project I am working on. I wont have the space to store all my projects on my computer.
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...p=113&id=67058
Or this
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/f...l_id=MDL101380
or this
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=227359&is=REG
Home photography is a universal market. EVERYBODY loves pictures and movies. Yes, digital cameras are mainstream, even commoditized, but they still aren't mandatory possesions like cell phones because they are still usually more trouble than they are worth. Most people need a really good reason to take pictures (let alone video). There's still a phsycological barrier to digital photography because the hardware is still a pain. iPhoto makes it a lot better, but the cameras themselves suck, the exact same way all the MP3 players sucked before the iPod. The market is crying out for a solution and this is just what Apple does best: spend some time surveying the market, take all the good, throw out the bad, and put it all in one little drool-worthy box that makes you smack your forehead in that wonderful, somebody-finally-figured-it-out way.
Apple's next DLD will be a camera, called iCam. (The name iSight was used for the webcam since it is for viewing not archiving.) It will be a huge hit in the exact same way as the iPod, and for the exact same reasons. The iPod took three seperate devices (MP3player, portable FireWire hard drive and PDA) and combined them into one little box without compromising any functionality. (I know the PDA functions are limited, but 90% of people only use their PDAs for contact and schedule management). Now instead of spending $500-$600 on three seperate boxes you have to juggle and keep track of, you spend $300-$500 on one little box with better functionality than the multiple dedicated devices it replaces.
Consumer digital cameras currently suffer from the same fragmention. You have to spend $200-$500 on a still camera and then $400-$1000 on a DV camcorder. Yes, many still cameras shoot video and many camcorders shoot stills, but they all suck at it . They take one kind of image well and the other kind terribly.
This leads to the current problem for consumers. Dad wants to chronicle little Timmy's soccer games, but he has to choose between good stills and crappy video or good video and crappy stills. Even if he drops $1K+ on both kinds of cameras, he still has to decide which one to use at any given time. Is this week's game "video worthy" or are stills good enough? Of course what ends up happening is Dad takes both cameras to the game and ends up taking a header into the Gatorade as he juggles a still camera in one hand and a camcorder in the other.
Then when he gets home he gets to manage two transfer sessions with two different kinds of cables and charge two kinds of external or removeable batteries.
Apple can do for consumer photography and videography what no one else can. The combination of Foveon tech, a 40-60GB Toshiba drive and MPEG-4 will create a HD based hybrid camera/camcorder that does everything in one box with no compromise. The stills and the video both look great.
So, Dad archives the soccer game, comes home, plugs his iCam into his Mac via FireWire and all the stills go to iPhoto and all the video to iMovie. No tapes to swap out, label and store, and no external batteries to recharge. It's costs less than buying two dedicated cameras and is 100 times easier to use.
OK, let me anticipate the objections.
1. HD based DV capture will be substandard. If you want good DV you have to use a traditional tape based camcorder.
This may or may not end up being true. Even if it does, so what? The MPEG-4 stuff will be more than adequate for 99% of consumers. It's just like the MP3 format. You give up a little quality in return for massive convenience.
2. I like my DV tapes. I can bring extras with me for more storage and they double as a backup of my video. A HD based camera won't offer enough recoding time for video.
This is true. Those little $8 DV tapes are a marvel and I'm a fan of them. 99% of consumers however, won't care. All they want is ease of use. Give them 60-90 minutes of raw video footage along with a couple hundred high rez stills, all in one sealed box and they'll be thrilled. Most people don't shoot more than that on one outing anyway. For every geek that likes and/or needs to carry, juggle, label and store multiple DV tapes, there are 99 consumers who don't want the hassle. Apple's camera will have no removable media or swappable drives of any kind.
3. A HD based consumer hybrid camera is a toy. I want a "real" camera.
You are a geek. The iCam is not for you. Don't buy one.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
Assuming the 2004 iPods have color displays, I see no reason why Apple can't extend the iPod's software to work with the iSight (which would just clip onto the iPod using a new iPod clip). Hold it like you would, for example, a mobile phone camera.
Barto
Yeah, that's an elegant and workable solution...
But think about this, you hold the iPod as you do normally (at an angle), with the iSight sitting on the top, looking forwards or up, and you watching what's being filmed on the iPod.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
No, it's a cheap solution. I'm still dumb-struck that the iSight exists at all, with very little differentiation v other web cams.
But think about this, you hold the iPod as you do normally (at an angle), with the iSight sitting on the top, looking forwards or up, and you watching what's being filmed on the iPod.
Barto
Since when does Apple do "cheap" solutions? The metal iSight and the white iPod are obviously not intended to go together. It would look clunky, lame and utterly unintegrated. Exactly what Apple doesn't do.
And if you think the iSight has "little differentiation" from other webcams, then you've obviously never used one.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Since when does Apple do "cheap" solutions? The metal iSight and the white iPod are obviously not intended to go together. It would look clunky, lame and utterly unintegrated. Exactly what Apple doesn't do.
Dude, I'm not talking about the current iPod (maybe not even the current iSight). A future iPod, a COLOR iPod, DESIGNED to integrate with iSight, like it currently does with 50 other peripherals.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
And if you think the iSight has "little differentiation" from other webcams, then you've obviously never used one.
I've used them a lot. While the iSight is easier to use, better quality etc, it's still just a web cam. There's not a whole lot you can do with one. UNLESS Apple couples it with the iPod somehow, THAT would be differentiation.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
Assuming the 2004 iPods have color displays, I see no reason why Apple can't extend the iPod's software to work with the iSight ...
Why would you assume that a future iPod will have a color screen?
If you attached an iSight to a future iPod, where would the compression happen?
BTW, a HD-based camcorder has nothing to do with the iPod, so I don't understand the title of this thread.
The iSight's video stream is already packaged as QuickTime, and even the current iPod's 40GB hard drive should be enough to store the raw iSight's data. If more processing power is required, I'm sure it will be there in a year or two.
Barto
That Panasonic device is about half the weight of the current iPod so it's certainly feasible to just augment it with a hard drive and still keep the size down.
The Panasonic device even has AAC and MPEG4 support built-in. Apple would need to do very little... wink wink
Nice idea, i just don't see Apple in the market for Camcorders with so much competition out there from Sony , Canon etc. At best the Apple Cam could have awesome integrated software to let you do neat things on the camcorder with your imported video. Like titles, effects etc.....then again i guess those are already standard features on most DV camcorders. How is this Apple video iPod a hot selling product? because it would be hard disk based? @ 12Gigs of HD space per 1 hour of video? i just dont see it.
But since you did call it a video iPod and i thought you were refering to a player vs recorder when i clicked on your thread: I would like to see player.
The video iPod I want to see:
40,60,80 gig player
plays all video as long is it can be understood by QT.
Also for pictures, as long as the file can be understood by QT. (for family pics etc)
a 5" screen? or there abouts
audio & video outs and ins.
I know i maybe part of a small portion of consumers who demand such a product but over the past few years i've moved away from Mp3 completely. I record Music Videos from TV and compress them into 80MB files (higher quality than most mpegs once you know how to tweak sorenson properly). I have close to 600 videos now and it would be nice to not be restricted to watching them on my desktop.
I saw a few developed or under development video like pods online but they only support, mpeg, WMV. I wish Apple would come out with my video iPod already.